The Sunshot Vision for Solar Technologies

The DOE's Sunshot Vision Study provides an in-depth assessment of the potential for solar technologies to share a significant portion of electricity demand in the United States in the coming decades.

Using NREL's Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) and Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) models, the SunShot Vision Study provides least-cost geographical deployment of solar technologies, among other technologies.

Information about the ReEds and SolarDS apps can be found on OpenEI.

The study is meant to be the most comprehensive review of the potential for U.S. solar electricity generation to date. The study was initiated by the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program (SETP) and managed by NREL.

Figure 1-2. Total Solar Capacity under the SunShot and
Reference Scenarios

Of the findings in the study, the cost of solar plays the most important role. Price is one of the main barriers to a widespread adoption of solar energy technologies. The SunShot Vision study explores a scenario in which the price of solar reduces by 75% from 2010 to 2020. Lowering the cost would give solar energy technologies a competitive advantage, an advantage that the SunShot Vision Study says would mean 14% of our power would come from solar in 2030, 27% by 2050.

Here are some other key findings in the study:

Achieving the SunShot price targets is projected to result in the cumulative installation of approximately 302 gigawatts (GW) of PV and 28 GW of CSP by 2030, and 632 GW of PV and 83 GW of CSP by 2050.

Annual U.S. electricity-sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are projected to be significantly lower in the SunShot scenario than in the reference scenario: 8%, or 181 million metric tons (MMT), lower in 2030, and 28%, or 760 MMT, lower in 2050.

Both the SunShot and reference scenarios require significant transmission expansion. In the reference scenario, transmission is expanded primarily to meet growing electricity demand by developing new conventional and wind resources. In the SunShot scenario, transmission is expanded at a similar level, but in different locations in order to develop solar resources.

The level of solar deployment envisioned in the SunShot scenario poses significant but not insurmountable technical challenges with respect to grid integration and could require substantial changes to system planning and operation practices. 

Financing the scale of expansion in the SunShot scenario will require significant new investments in the solar manufacturing supply chain and in solar energy projects.

Achieving the SunShot scenario level of solar deployment would result in significant downward pressure on retail electricity prices.

Achieving the SunShot scenario level of solar deployment could support 290,000 new solar jobs by 2030, and 390,000 new solar jobs by 2050.

The Full SunShot Vision Study is available by clicking here

Green Button winner announced, 60 + GB Apps on OpenEI

Today was the day for the Apps for Energy Challenge, with an announcement of a winner of the month-long contest to find the best app using Green Button data.

The winner of the competition, Leafully, was announced today, and will receive the 1st place prize of $30,000 for developing an app that consumers can use to analyze personal energy use data and make more informed decisions.

Leafully is based on simplification -- rather than confuse people with tons of views, terminology, and visualizations, Leafully boils down the concept of energy use to a single tree. The app takes into account electricity use as well as many other facets to come up with a total tree footprint per person.

The project was a side project by Microsoft 'Bing' engineers. In their free time, Timothy Edgar and Nathan Jhaveri hacked away at the app for 2 weeks leading up to the final submission. The app creators plan on pursuing Leafully as a startup venture using the money from the Apps For Energy Challenge.

There were many other great candidates in the Department of Energy's Apps for Energy challenge. Thanks to a major joint effort to maximize the exposure of these great tools for consumers, OpenEI is proud to now have over 60 Green Button apps, and more than 200 total energy apps. See for yourself, and pick the one you most like and wish to use.

How the U.S. Geothermal Market Is and Is Not Growing

Article courtesy of NREL's Renewable Energy Project Finance website


Apparently little happened in the way of new, operational geothermal plants in 2011, if you look at the Geothermal Energy Association's 2012 annual Power Production and Development report [1]. Although the United States remains in the lead globally in terms of installed capacity with 3,187 MW, only 91 MW of additional capacity came on line last year (not subtracting for replaced capacity). And nearly 50 MW of this additional installed capacity was at a single plant: the Hudson Ranch 1 in California [2].


That's not to say the geothermal industry hasn't been working hard. The number of plants in development and the breadth of technologies and geographical area have certainly grown. As of the GEA reporting period, 147 projects are in development (including 17 that are unconfirmed) that could result in roughly 4,900 to 5,300 MW of installed capacity if completed.


Geothermal development has long been centered in western states. But according to GEA, "developers are increasingly exploring for and developing conventional hydrothermal geothermal resources in areas where little or no previous development has taken place." The number of states with projects in development (15) compared to those with operating plants illustrates the trend of geographical expansion of the market (9) (see the maps below).

Figure 1. Geothermal Capacity Online and Under Development in the U.S. States in 2011 Source: [1]

Much of this expansion into uncharted geothermal territory is due to the development and application of relatively new technologies. Take, for example, co-production in which fluid byproducts from oil and gas-field developments are used to access low-temperature geothermal resources. The DOE Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) is supporting co-production projects in North Dakota and Texas, both of which have traditionally been off the geothermal electric map. Co-production projects also are underway in Louisiana and Wyoming.


Of course, there's also enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a technique that uses hydraulic fracturing (without the chemicals that characterize gas 'fracking') to create commercial production at levels that would otherwise not be allowed by the naturally occurring capacity flow [1]. Thanks to the Apache County EGS project (2 MW), Arizona is now also part of the geothermal market, where previously it had been absent. DOE GTP is also supporting EGS demonstration projects in Alaska, California, Nevada Idaho, and Oregon [3].


In addition to new technologies, state and federal policies (beyond the project support provided by DOE GTP) have in part driven geothermal development. In the case of California and Nevada, renewable portfolio standards (33% by 2020 and 25% by 2025, respectively) combined with significant, known resources have led to comparatively large installed capacities in those states [4].


As new technologies and enhanced drilling techniques have become commercialized, states that previously thought they had limited geothermal market potential are now trying to improve their attractiveness to developers. Alaska provides an interesting policy example in this regard. The state has adopted a renewable energy goal (non-enforceable) to generate 50% of the state's electricity from renewable energy resources by 2052. This year, Alaska allocated $250 million to support renewable energy projects [1]. And in 2010 under SB 243, Alaska reduced royalty payments from geothermal projects on state lands and streamlined geothermal permitting and regulatory processes with state agencies [5].


Alongside states, the federal government has provided several financial incentives. However, as indicated in the figure below from a forthcoming NREL report on geothermal policies, most of these incentives have been phased out over the last couple of years, or in the case of the loan guarantee program, are fully committed.

Figure 2. Timeline of federal geothermal financial incentives [6]

9 For more information on geothermal project finance, see the Guidebook to Geothermal Power Finance at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49391.pdf.

10 For additional information and resources, including eligible costs, relevant legislation, and history of the incentives, see DSIRE’s pages on the following: MACRS and Bonus Depreciation: http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US06F; Treasury Cash Grants: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US53F; Investment Tax Credits: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02F&re=1&ee=0; and, Production Tax Credits: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F&re=1&ee=0.

So what will the geothermal market look like in a few years? Without federal financial incentives, additional state support, and easily attainable cost reductions, it's hard to say. Fifty-megawatt hydrothermal plants could become a thing of the past and could be replaced by smaller, distributed projects accessing lower-temperature resources in states where geothermal had previously been considered unrealistic. And maybe oil and gas companies will start to leverage their resources and drilling expertise and get their hands dirty with coproduction.


Sources: 


[1] GEA. (April 2011). Annual US Geothermal Power Production and Development Report.


[2] "EnergySource Announces Grid Synchronization, Outstanding Test Results At First New Geothermal Plant in Salton Sea Area in 20 Years" (March 1, 2012). Energy Source press release.


[3] Geothermal Technology Program Project Database — Enhanced Geothermal System Projects. Accessed May 7, 2012.


[4] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. (March 2012) "RPS Policies" map.


[5] "Alaska cuts red tape to attract renewable energy developers" (June 3, 2010). BrighterEnergy.org. 


[6] Source: Speer, (2012 forthcoming); Adapted primarily from:


Salmon, J.; Meurice, J.; Wobus, N.; Stern, F.; Duaime, M. (2011). Guidebook to Geothermal Power Finance. Boulder: Navigant Consulting subcontract report for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.


Feldman, D. (2011). "First Quarter 2011, Solar Industry Update." National Renewable Energy Laboratory presentation. DSIRE (2011). "Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC)." DSIRE website. Accessed September 19, 2011.

Steven Chu highlights 2012 WREF Forum in Denver

The DOE's Secretary of Energy Steven Chu headlined an impressive list of speakers at this year's World Renewable Energy Forum in Denver, Colorado, held May 13-17th.

Other notable speakers included Governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, and NREL Director Dan Arvizu.

The event took place at the LEED certified Colorado Convention Center, a fitting place for the event.

This year's WREF forum was formed by joining the American Solar Energy Society's National Solar Conference with the biennial World Renewable Energy Congress. The result was a forum for discussing how renewable energy technologies address the world's economic, environmental and security challenges, and how they accomplish that while also being scalable.

Steven Chu made clear in his keynote address that America needs Congress to extend the tax credits for renewables. "America can't afford to miss out on the clean-energy opportunity" said Chu. The opportunity to create a revolution like the Industrial Revolution in technology and job creation around clean energy sources, said Chu, will put the United States on the path toward sustainability.

OpenEI is proud to have participated in the WREF forum. Both the OpenEI platform and the Utility Rate Database (URDB) within OpenEI were highlighted, with presentations given by OpenEI team members Ryan Mckeel and Debbie Brodt-Giles.

For more information on WREF 2012, click the links below:

U.S. energy chief pushes for extension of tax credits for renewables


World Renewable Energy Forum


Secretary Chu at the World Renewable Energy Forum in Denver

ConnectivityWeek Hackathon with Green Button data

Next week in Santa Clara, California from May 22-24, the Cleanweb Hackathon presented by Connectivity week will be in full effect, inviting software developers and Smart Grid experts to come to the Bay Area to hack and develop new applications using Green Button data and analytics:


"The ConnectivityWeek Hackathon is a first-of-its-kind event to bring software developers and Smart Grid experts together to “hack” -- or, develop -- innovative energy management applications for consumers over a two-day period.

Inspired by Green Button data and analytics, the hackathon will gather 50-100 IT innovators and clean-tech vendors to solve a series of home-energy-management (HEM) problem sets in a competitive environment. According to Cleanweb, the goal of a hackathon is to build apps and “hacks” exploiting new sustainable business models while leveraging the mobile and social web.

The hackathon will kick off Tuesday, May 22, at ConnectivityWeek, giving the hackers two full days to innovate. Applications will be judged, and winners will be selected, during the conference’s Thursday-afternoon closing plenary session." courtesy of connectivity week.com

You can register today at the connectivity week website. Visit the website to find out more about how the competition is judged, prizes, and more.

OpenEI town hall meeting on Mondays!

Do you want to be more connected with the OpenEI community?

Announcing a weekly, public telecon with the OpenEI community at large!  Find out how your fellow researchers, students, teachers and energy professionals are using OpenEI, and let us know what needs to change!

Please forward this public meeting on to any interested colleagues – we have 100 call-in lines ready and waiting for this telecon!

When: Occurs every Monday 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM (GMT-07:00) Mountain Time

Please use the following information to call in to this meeting:

866-459-9997 #9645075

Town hall schedule:

30 minutes

5 mins brief introductions - name, company, potential icebreaker (what's your favorite analysis tool, programming language, energy sector..)
5 minutes OpenEI: what's new and coming soon
5 minutes community member volunteer: what your business/app/project is, and how you use OpenEI
7 minutes community: what should OpenEI do more of, what should we do less of?
Remaining time: other topics, free-form discussion, Q&A

An Intro to Building-Integrated Photovoltaics Pt. 2: Challenges

This article  courtesy of NREL's Renewable Energy Project Finance website


Today, BIPV only claims about a 1% share of total PV installations worldwide [1], but several analysts foresee good times ahead for this niche technology. Below is a summary of the challenges and barriers that may block or complicate the pathway to those good times unless they are addressed by the relevant stakeholders. These challenges can be classified into four categories: price, performance, codes and standards, and market limitations.


To recap: BIPV comprises a group of solar PV technologies that are built into (instead of installed onto) the host structure and may actually replace some building materials (such as windows or roof shingles). BIPV's potential to seamlessly integrate into the building envelope holds aesthetic appeal for architects, builders, and real estate holders, and this has been one of its principal sources of attraction in its three-decade lifespan.  


Price 


Aesthetics alone, however, will not propel BIPV beyond its niche in the PV market—there are economics to consider. BIPV systems generally carry a larger price tag than do flat panel systems, though the reasons for this are somewhat unclear, given the lack of BIPV market data available. The following list of factors can account for some of the price differential:


* Customer perception that these products should cost more because of their specialty function and their willingness to pay premiums for that function
* Supply chain issues for products and services (e.g., difficulties in establishing distribution channels and hence getting product to market)
*BIPV modules may include additional materials (e.g., adhesives and framing and flashing materials) [1]
*Additional labor costs deriving from specialized architectural design, engineering design, and installation [2].


It is important to note that BIPV prices are variable by market and by application (i.e., structure-specific design of the module), and so pricing is something of a moving target.


Despite reportedly higher prices, BIPV systems may offer an offset value in the construction process through, among other things, the replacement of traditional building materials and the dispensation of rack-mounting hardware. A recent NREL report on BIPV in the residential sector cautions, however, that "past market experiences suggest that realizing these cost-reductions can be very challenging" [1]. And without significant reductions in installed costs (~5%), BIPV's cost of energy comes up short of competitive with flat-panel PV [1].


Performance


There are some important performance variables to consider when calculating energy costs of a BIPV system. For starters, BIPV modules may experience higher operating temperatures because, unlike rack-mounted PV, they are flush with the building surface and do not permit airflow between module and host structure. Higher temperatures may degrade the semiconducting material of the module, which could decrease the conversion efficiency more quickly and precipitate early failure. Some PV materials—for example, amorphous silicon, which has a flexible form factor and hence a potentially greater integration potential—are more susceptible to thermally accelerated degradation than others. Also, PV materials with greater integration potential, such as thin films and flexible PV technologies, generally have lower efficiencies to begin with, and this may contribute to higher energy costs.


Finally, because BIPV modules typically contain less semiconducting material than traditional PV modules, a BIPV system will likely produce less electricity than a flat-panel system of the same size. And even though BIPV can increase the PV-suitable space of a building (i.e., more than just the roof is eligible for installation), the sub-optimal angle of irradiation on these non-horizontal surfaces, combined with the obstructions posed by surrounding buildings, create diminished returns on increased module deployment [3].


Codes and Standards


Because BIPV modules serve dual functions, they must hew to the codes and standards of two separate industries (PV and construction). Currently, PV modules (including BIPV) are subject to the qualification and design standards devised by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the Underwriters Laboratory [4]. But BIPV may be required to meet additional criteria as a structural component, and this can act as a market handicap. For example, the International Code Council, whose pervasive International Building Codes have been adopted by all 50 states and Washington, D.C., has established criteria for BIPV as a roofing material that dictates its performance on stability, wind resistance, durability, and fire safety [5].


Even something as simple as measurement standards could complicate BIPV deployment. The construction industry employs square meter units, which denotes area, and the PV industry uses watt units, which measure electrical output. If this incongruence remains unresolved, it could create some headaches for installers in the building trade.


For now, BIPV keeps awkward toeholds in both the PV and construction industries, without an integrated set of standards and codes to carve out the middle ground. The establishment of this middle ground through a clear set of guidelines and expectations for the manufacturing and construction process will serve as a growth platform for the BIPV industry.


Market Limitations


Unlike flat-panel PV, where module designs do not vary greatly from one application to another, BIPV manufacturers' products vary by façade type (e.g., roof shingles, windows, and awnings). This emphasis on custom-design segments the BIPV market and, in turn, hobbles the technology's path to scalability. The fact that BIPV does not compete in the utility-scale, ground-mount space (in other words, it is limited to residential and commercial building applications) further hinders its scalability. Without the kind of capital accumulation, economies of scale, and learning curve progress that comes from a manufacturing and deployment scale-up, BIPV may not realize the kinds of cost reductions that could facilitate its adoption. 


References 


[1] James, T.; Goodrich, A.; Woodhouse, M.; Margolis, R.; Ong, S. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in the Residential Sector: An Analysis of Installed Rooftop System Prices. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 2011. Pg. vii. Accessed April 17, 2012.


[2] Greentech Media. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics: An Emerging Market. GTM Research, July 2010.


[3] James, T. Interview. NREL, Golden, CO. January 19, 2012


[4] Speer, B. "Solar PV Quality Assurance from the Developer's Perspective." National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 2011. Accessed April 17, 2012.


[5] ICC Evaluation Service. "Acceptance Criteria for Building-Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) Roof Covering Systems." AC365. The International Cod Council, October 2011. Accessed April 17, 2012.